For purposes of this article, only a physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, phlebotomist, graduate laboratory technician or a technician or nurse designated by order of a circuit court acting upon the recommendation of a licensed physician, using soap and water, polyvinylpyrrolidone iodine, pvp iodine, povidone iodine or benzalkonium chloride to cleanse the part of the body from which the blood is taken and using instruments sterilized by the accepted steam sterilizer or some other sterilizer which will not affect the accuracy of the test, or using chemically clean sterile disposable syringes, shall withdraw blood for the purpose of determining its alcohol or drug or both alcohol and drug content. It is a Class 3 misdemeanor to reuse single-use-only needles or syringes. No civil liability shall attach to any person authorized to withdraw blood as a result of the act of withdrawing blood as provided in this section from any person submitting thereto, provided the blood was withdrawn according to recognized medical procedures. However, the person shall not be relieved from liability for negligence in the withdrawing of any blood sample.
No person arrested for a violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or subsection B of § 18.2-272, or a similar ordinance shall be required to execute in favor of any person or corporation a waiver or release of liability in connection with the withdrawal of blood and as a condition precedent to the withdrawal of blood as provided for in this section.
1992, c. 830; 1994, cc. 359, 363; 2004, cc. 150, 440, 1013; 2005, cc. 757, 840.
Notes of Decisions
Michael Scott Coffman v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 795 S.E.2d 178 (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 16× “Coffman argues that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the certificate of analysis from a blood sample that was obtained by a nurse who was not designated by an order of the circuit court to withdraw blood; he argues that such prior designation is required by Code…”
Stevens v. Commonwealth, 616 S.E.2d 754 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 8× “Appellant also contends that in spite of the statute allowing admission of hospital blood tests, those tests must also meet the requirements of Code § 18.2-268.5, which relate to the handling of blood samples taken pursuant to the implied consent law.”
Stevens v. Commonwealth, 603 S.E.2d 642 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 12× “He contends that in spite of the statute allowing admission of hospital blood tests, those tests must also meet the requirements of Code § 18.2-268.5, which relate to the handling of blood samples taken pursuant to the implied consent law.”
Snider v. Commonwealth, 496 S.E.2d 665 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 8× “Code § 18.2-268.5. The legislature has clearly indicated in the following statutory language that strict compliance with some parts of the implied consent law will not be required: The steps set forth in [Code] §§ 18.”
Thurston v. City of Lynchburg, 424 S.E.2d 701 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “6 provides that “[ajdequate portions of the blood samples” shall be withdrawn in accordance with Code § 18.2-268.5 and be placed into two vials and sealed, and in turn, each vial shall be placed into separate sealed containers.”
Snead v. Commonwealth, 437 S.E.2d 239 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The sheriff’s department’s failure to locate a public facility in Hanover County that is open twenty-four hours a day for the purpose of taking blood samples does not establish that no private facility, individual medical care professional, or other health care provider…”
Hudson v. Commonwealth, 462 S.E.2d 913 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “” Code § 18.2-268.5. The record in this case states that “benadine” was used to clean appellant’s arm.”
Artis v. City of Suffolk, 450 S.E.2d 165 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
“6 reads in pertinent part: Adequate portions of the blood samples withdrawn pursuant to § 18.2-268.5 shall be placed in vials provided by the *170 Division of Forensic Science.”
Robert Matthew Caldwell v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 38× “On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by overruling his objection to the identification of Kelly Patteson as a nurse who was qualified to withdraw blood pursuant to Code § 18.2-268.5. Appellant also contends that the court erred by admitting a certificate of analysis…”
Robel Abebe Getachew v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 37× “to withdraw blood for the purpose of determining its alcohol or drug or both alcohol and drug content,” consistent with the recommendation of a licensed physician under Code § 18.2-268.5. -2- Devine cleaned Getachew’s right arm with “soap and water,” placed a tourniquet on his…”
Roy Edward Haley v. Commonwealth Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 25× “Prior to trial, appellant moved to suppress the results arguing that their admission into evidence was a violation of Code § 18.2-268.5 because McWilliams, although a registered nurse, “was not designated by order of the [trial court].”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.